Bounekhla [2006] EWCA Crim Sexual Assault s3 – Touching For the purposes of sexual
1217 [2006] All ER (D) 245 (Apr) assault, there must be
touching. Here, D pled guilty to
sexual assault by touching the
complainant by ejaculating on
to their clothing.
Basherdost [2009] EWCA Crim Causing a person to engage in One count alleged that the
2883 sexual activity without consent appellant had caused a man to
s4 engage in sexual activity with a
woman, and the other count
alleged that he had caused the
woman to engage in sexual
activity with the man. Held:
guilty.
R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732 Conduct Must be Sexual for D admitted to inserting his
[2005] 1 W.L.R. 2005 the Purposes of s2-4 fingers inside C’s vagina. Held:
conviction upheld as D’s attack
was humiliating because it was
sexual. Principle: non-
consensual sexual acts are still
held to be sexual, even if the
act is not done out of
gratification, because it caused
C harm.
Court [1989] AC 28 [1988] 2 Conduct Must be Sexual for D put C over his knee and
W.L.R. 1071 the Purposes of s2-4 smacked her clothed bum.
Issue: was it done out of
discipline or a fetish? D
admitted to fetish. Held: was
an activity which isn’t
inherently sexual but the
nature may be – and it was
here after D admitted to it.
Conviction for indecent assault
thus upheld.
R v W [2015] EWCA Crim 559 Consent D was convicted of rape and
[2015] All ER (D) 87 (Apr) assault by penetration of his
adult daughter. D had
contended at trial that sexual
intercourse had been
consensual. He appealed
against conviction on the
ground that, among other
things, the judge's summing up
had been deficient in that it
had not gone into the detail of
text messages sent the
complainant to the defendant
which contradicted her
evidence that sex had been
non-consensual. The Court of
, Appeal, Criminal Division, in
allowing the appeal, held that
the conviction could not be
held to be safe in the face of
the deficiencies revealed by
the summing up.
Williams [1923] 1 KB 340 (1924) Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature D (a singing teacher) told C she
17 Cr. App. R. 56 needed to make an air passage
which would help her sing
better. D proceeded to engage
in sexual intercourse with her.
Held: consent to the air
passage wasn’t consent to sex.
She had been deceived as to
the nature and purpose of the
act and any consent was
therefore negated. Deception
of nature = misleading her as
to the dynamics of sexual
intercourse. Deception as to
the purpose = D aimed for
sexual gratification, not for her
to sing better.
R v B [2006] EWCA Crim 2945 Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature D didn’t close the possibility of
[2007] 1 W.L.R. 1567 him passing on an STI to C
when they had sex. Held: this
didn’t vitiate consent to the
sexual act as C wasn’t misled
to the nature and purpose of
the sexual act. She had the
freedom and capacity to make
the choice to consent.
Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103 Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature R v B was confirmed here as it
[2004] 3 W.L.R. 213 was held that there was no
deception as to the nature and
purpose of the act ie failing to
tell x2 C’s that D was HIV+.
Assange v Swedish Judicial Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature Obiter - wearing or not
Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 wearing a condom doesn’t
(Admin) [2011] All ER (D) 13 alter the nature of the sexual
(Nov) activity under s76 BUT if C
made it clear that they’d only
consent if D used a condom,
then D’s intentional and
deceptive failure to respect
that condition would initiate
consent in light of s74.
Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 Consent – s76(2)(a) - Purpose D (posing as a female 20 year
[2008] All ER (D) 241 (Feb) old) deceived C into
masturbating on camera so he
could exact revenge and
1217 [2006] All ER (D) 245 (Apr) assault, there must be
touching. Here, D pled guilty to
sexual assault by touching the
complainant by ejaculating on
to their clothing.
Basherdost [2009] EWCA Crim Causing a person to engage in One count alleged that the
2883 sexual activity without consent appellant had caused a man to
s4 engage in sexual activity with a
woman, and the other count
alleged that he had caused the
woman to engage in sexual
activity with the man. Held:
guilty.
R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732 Conduct Must be Sexual for D admitted to inserting his
[2005] 1 W.L.R. 2005 the Purposes of s2-4 fingers inside C’s vagina. Held:
conviction upheld as D’s attack
was humiliating because it was
sexual. Principle: non-
consensual sexual acts are still
held to be sexual, even if the
act is not done out of
gratification, because it caused
C harm.
Court [1989] AC 28 [1988] 2 Conduct Must be Sexual for D put C over his knee and
W.L.R. 1071 the Purposes of s2-4 smacked her clothed bum.
Issue: was it done out of
discipline or a fetish? D
admitted to fetish. Held: was
an activity which isn’t
inherently sexual but the
nature may be – and it was
here after D admitted to it.
Conviction for indecent assault
thus upheld.
R v W [2015] EWCA Crim 559 Consent D was convicted of rape and
[2015] All ER (D) 87 (Apr) assault by penetration of his
adult daughter. D had
contended at trial that sexual
intercourse had been
consensual. He appealed
against conviction on the
ground that, among other
things, the judge's summing up
had been deficient in that it
had not gone into the detail of
text messages sent the
complainant to the defendant
which contradicted her
evidence that sex had been
non-consensual. The Court of
, Appeal, Criminal Division, in
allowing the appeal, held that
the conviction could not be
held to be safe in the face of
the deficiencies revealed by
the summing up.
Williams [1923] 1 KB 340 (1924) Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature D (a singing teacher) told C she
17 Cr. App. R. 56 needed to make an air passage
which would help her sing
better. D proceeded to engage
in sexual intercourse with her.
Held: consent to the air
passage wasn’t consent to sex.
She had been deceived as to
the nature and purpose of the
act and any consent was
therefore negated. Deception
of nature = misleading her as
to the dynamics of sexual
intercourse. Deception as to
the purpose = D aimed for
sexual gratification, not for her
to sing better.
R v B [2006] EWCA Crim 2945 Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature D didn’t close the possibility of
[2007] 1 W.L.R. 1567 him passing on an STI to C
when they had sex. Held: this
didn’t vitiate consent to the
sexual act as C wasn’t misled
to the nature and purpose of
the sexual act. She had the
freedom and capacity to make
the choice to consent.
Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103 Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature R v B was confirmed here as it
[2004] 3 W.L.R. 213 was held that there was no
deception as to the nature and
purpose of the act ie failing to
tell x2 C’s that D was HIV+.
Assange v Swedish Judicial Consent – s76(2)(a) - Nature Obiter - wearing or not
Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 wearing a condom doesn’t
(Admin) [2011] All ER (D) 13 alter the nature of the sexual
(Nov) activity under s76 BUT if C
made it clear that they’d only
consent if D used a condom,
then D’s intentional and
deceptive failure to respect
that condition would initiate
consent in light of s74.
Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 Consent – s76(2)(a) - Purpose D (posing as a female 20 year
[2008] All ER (D) 241 (Feb) old) deceived C into
masturbating on camera so he
could exact revenge and
